Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Capital topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ossining UFSD previews budget, tax-levy calculation and capital projects; public raises concerns about AMD site tree clearing
Summary
District staff walked the board through the tax-levy calculation and capital transfer projects, estimating the levy limit below 2%. A resident urged the board to avoid clear-cutting on the AMD site; administrators said planning will retain acreage and present detailed plans at a follow-up workshop.
At a March 12 special meeting, district staff presented a draft budget overview that emphasized the tax levy as the largest recurring revenue stream and explained exclusions used in the levy-limit calculation.
A staff presenter identified the tax cap calculation elements and said the district "anticipate[s] that our levy limit will be" below 2 percent; a board member later clarified the working estimate in the meeting as about 1.67 percent. The presentation named capital exclusions — including a transfer-to-capital line — that remove planned capital projects from the levy calculation so they do not push the regular tax levy higher.
The administration listed capital projects included in the transfer-to-capital line: site clearing and earthwork related to the AMD campus driveway, Brookside cafeteria and kitchen work, districtwide security camera upgrades, resurfacing the AMD track, replacing a water main at Claremont, gym window and floor repairs at the high school, bleacher repairs, masonry work and exterior painting in multiple buildings, and replacement of some rooftop units. The staff presenter said the transfer-to-capital line is the mechanism used to earmark those projects in the capital fund so funds sit in that account until work is ready to be expensed.
During the public comment period, resident Howard Fleisher said he had "no objection" to necessary site work but raised concerns that the AMD development plan called for clear-cutting "15 acres of trees" adjacent to a cemetery and wetlands. Fleisher asked whether the district planned to clear all of the land at once and what the long-term plan for cleared acreage would be.
Superintendent Mary Foxholder and staff responded that the AMD site plan is "an iterative process" and that the district does not intend to indiscriminately clear the property. Foxholder said the district's current plan would regrade slopes and "leave 8 acres in the back alone," use recycled soil, widen rather than deepen cuts, and design a water-retention approach intended to protect wetlands and the adjacent cemetery. She said the detailed plans, engineering reports and funding layering will be presented in greater depth at the district's budget workshop on Saturday and that the board will need to approve final designs and associated spending.
Board members asked about timing and approvals. The administration noted that some capital projects — for example the Brookside cafeteria renovation — require submission and approval by the New York State Education Department before work can proceed; other projects such as gym painting may be scheduled and bid locally. The staff presentation also referenced the New York State Comptroller's reporting and Department of Labor CPI elements used in the levy-limit formula.
District officials said the capital transfer approach and the existing capital fund let the district earmark projects now so they can be executed when ready. More detailed project timelines, engineering documents and answers to specific questions (for example, responsibility for water-main work in the public right-of-way) will be presented at the upcoming budget workshop.
